Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 06:44:52 07/26/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 26, 2003 at 08:24:53, Uri Blass wrote: >On July 25, 2003 at 22:09:22, George Sobala wrote: > >>On July 25, 2003 at 17:32:03, Matthew Hull wrote: >> >>>On July 25, 2003 at 17:15:34, George Sobala wrote: >>> >>>>On July 25, 2003 at 15:39:55, Matthew Hull wrote: >>>> >>>>>======================================================================== >>>>>Wannabe: Any ICC computer account owner who is not the programmer of the >>>>>engine/engines running in their account. >>>>>======================================================================== >>>>> >>>>>All non-programmer-owned computer accounts -- as a requirement for having a >>>>>rated computer account on ICC -- must play in at least [fillin the blank] number >>>>>of Weekly ICC Wannabe Equalizer (WIWE, pronounced "wee-wee") >>>>>blitz/standard/whatever events per [month, quarter, 6 months, whatever] in order >>>>>to retain their ratings. Failure to meet these requirements will cause the >>>>>account to: >>>>> >>>>>-- lose it's ratings >>>>>-- be limited to unrated games for [fill in the period of time] >>>>>-- (whatever else) >>>>> >>>>>The purpose of the WIWEs is to keep the rating system in some sense of >>>>>equalibrium. Accounts MUST play whoever/whatever enters the event, which, since >>>>>it will be a computer requirement, will be computers, plus perhaps whoever else >>>>>wants to play. >>>>> >>>>>A possible side benefit might be that it could actaully be fun. >>>> >>>>I am not the programmer of the engine I run (though I did write the settings) >>>> >>>>I am not bothered by its rating. >>>> >>>>I have no interest in playing other computers. >>>> >>>>So where does your suggestion leave me??? >>> >>> >>>Since you are not bothered by or otherwise "hung up" on ratings, then you won't >>>care what happens to it in an equalizer event. :) >>> >>>So this is no problem for you. >>> >>>Matt >>> >>> >>>> >>>>ICCs current policy is liberal. People do as they wish with their accounts, >>>>which they pay good money for. Why turn fascist? Why get hung up about ratings? >> >>Ah - but I need _some_ sort of rating to encourage players of the appropriate >>calibre to play me. If I had my rating stripped, it would be harder to seek >>appropriate games. > >Maybe we need 3 numbers for every player: >rating against computers,rating against humans,rating based on all games. > >players who want to get into the list of rating based on all games need to >play often in ICC Wannabe Equalizer when other players can continue to have >rating against humans and rating against computers without being considered in >the only serious rating list. That sounds good! MH > >Uri
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.